ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 67
GITIN 66 & 67 - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter who wants the
Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.
(a) We just explained that 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid' is Kasher according to
Rebbi Yossi, based on the fact that, even though 'Imru le'Sofer ve'Yichtov
li'P'loni u'P'loni ve'Yachtemu' is Kasher, one should not appoint a
Sheli'ach in this way. Consequently, it is unusual for it to occur, and
whenever something is unusual, Chazal did not decree an Isur on account of
it. We ask from 'Amar Lehu le'Bei T'rei Imru le'Sofer ve'Yichtov, ve'Atem
Chasumu', which will be less conducive to 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid' than the
previous one - according to those who hold that not only is such a Shelichus
Kasher, but that it is permitted Lechatchilah, and therefore prone to the
Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi asked Shmuel why, considering that Rebbi Meir
and Chanina Ish Ono argue with Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi nevertheless ruled like
him. He replied - that, had he seen Rebbi Yossi, he would not ask such a
question, because Rebbi Yossi always supported his opinions with sound
(b) We therefore change our minds with regard to the opinion of Rebbi Yossi,
who in fact holds that - 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Sheli'ach', even if the
Meshale'ach said 'Imru ... '.
(c) The Amora'im who argue over whether 'Kasher ve'Se'aseh' or Kasher ve'Lo
Sa'aseh' - hold like Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Mili Mimseran li'Sheli'ach').
(d) When we say that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi in one issue but not in
the other - we mean that he holds like him regarding 'Mili Lo Mimseri
li'Sheli'ach' (as long as the Meshale'ach did not say 'Imru le'Sofer
ve'Yichtov'), but not where he said 'Imru le'Sofer ve'Yichtov', where the
Get is Kasher.
(a) Isi ben Yehudah listed the strong points of some of the Tana'im. He
described Rebbi Meir as a Chacham and a Sofer - and Rebbi Yehudah as a
Chacham whenever he put his mind to it (see Tosfos DH 'Chacham').
(b) When he described ...
1. ... Rebbi Tarfon as a pile of nuts - he meant that like a pile of nuts,
which all tumble down when one pulls one nut out of it, so was Rebbi Tarfon.
When a Talmid would ask him a She'eilah, Chumash, Medrash, Mishnah Halachah
and Agadah would all come 'tumbling out'.
(c) Isi referred to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri as a Kupah shel Ruchlin, and
Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah as a Kupah shel Besamim. The difference between
them is - that a Kupah shel Ruchlin (bearing in mind the nature of a
peddler) contains more species.
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael as a well-stocked wine store - he meant that he always
had an answer ready to any question that he was asked.
3. ... Rebbi Akiva as an 'Otzar B'lum' - that he had a tremendous store of
knowledge that he had acquired as he learned it from his Rebbes; Chumash,
Medrash, Halachah and Agadah, but which he later compartmentalized (which is
what 'Otzar B'lum' means - a storehouse, which has clearly-defined
compartments), Chumash in one compartment, Medrash in another ... .
(d) When Isi said ...
1. ... 'Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov as Kav ve'Naki' - he meant that he
did not teach his disciples as much as his contemporaries, but that so clear
where those rulings, that whatever he did teach is Halachah.
2. ... about Rebbi Shimon 'Tochen Harbeh u'Motzi Kim'a' - he meant that, he
absorbed a tremendous amount of knowledge, only forgetting things that were
not Halachah anyway. Rebbi Shimon instructed his disciples to learn his
Torah - because it comprised the choice selection of the sayings of Rebbi
(a) If someone asks two people to appoint a Sofer to write a Get and two
people to sign it, the Sh'tar is Kasher. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbid doing
this Lechatchilah - because he is afraid that the man's wife might hire two
people to appoint a Sofer and witnesses to write her a Get.
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa says that witnesses whose signatures appear on a
document of sale or on a Get - are above suspicion, and the Sh'tar is valid.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav reconciles his suspicions with the Beraisa, which
trusts the witnesses' integrity - by differentiating between the suspicion
of actually signing a Sh'tar falsely and merely asking others to do so.
(d) The matter is not so clear-cut (le'Isur) when it comes to a man asking
two witnesses to ask a Sofer to write the Get and that they themselves
should sign - because, now that it is forbidden for witnesses to sign a Get
unless they are actually asked to do so by the husband himself, there is no
longer any cause for suspicion.
(a) In the latter case, Rav Chisda and Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rav Nachman and
Rav Sheishes and Rabah and Rav Yosef argue over the matter. In each case,
the former holds 'Kasher ve'Lo Se'aseh', the latter, 'Kasher ve'Se'aseh'.
The former are stringent (despite the fact that the cause for suspicion no
longer exists) - because it is all part of the one decree (not to write a
Get or to sign it unless one is asked by the husband himself).
(b) There is a second Lashon which switches the opinions of one of the
pairs - the last one, Rabah and Rav Yosef.
(a) If ...
1. ... a man asks ten men to take a Get to his wife - only one of them need
actually take it to her.
(b) If, instead of saying 'Kulchem, he calls each of them by name, Rav Huna
does not consider it like Kulchem, Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi
Elazar from Rome, does. Rav Papa comments - that this is not really a
'Machlokes' at all, because the one speaks when he called each of the ten
names, the other, when he only called one of them.
2. ... he adds the word 'Kulchem' - then one of them takes it, but the other
nine are obligated to accompany him (otherwise, the Get is Batel).
(c) Some say that Rebbe Yochanan is speaking when he called them *all* by
name (because this shows that he is fussy that they all participate), and
Rav Huna, when he only called out some of them. Others say - that if he
called them *all* by name, then, not having actually said 'Kulchem', even
Rebbi Yochanan will agree that he is not fussy. It is when he only calls
some of them that he is fussy, and all those that he called must participate
in the Shelichus.
(a) Rav Yehudah initiated that, whenever a man asked many people to write a
Get for his wife, to sign it or to take it to her - that he must explicitly
state that either all of them must write, sign or take the Get to his wife,
or that any one of them must write or take the Get to his wife, or two of
them must sign it.
***** Hadran Alach ha'Omer *****
(b) Rava objects however - on the grounds that sometimes, the husband might
inadvertently stop after 'Kulchem', with the result that, should they not
all participate in the actual Shelichus, the Get will be invalid.
(c) So he amends the Takanah - by omitting 'Kulchem' altogether.
Consequently, a husband who addresses many people when appointing a
Sheli'ach ha'Get, is obligated to specifically appoint one of them to write
the Get or bring it to his wife, or two of them to sign it.
***** Perek Mi she'Achzo *****
(a) If someone who has been seized by Kurdaikus instructs a Shelia'ch to
write his wife a Get, the Shelichus is invalid. 'Kurdaikus' is - the name of
a female demon who holds control over someone who drinks a lot of wine
straight from the vat.
(b) If someone appoints a Sheli'ach to write his wife a Get, and then, after
he is seized by Kurdaikus, he cancels the Shelichus - the Shelichus remains
(c) If we ask a man who has been struck dumb whether he wishes to divorce
his wife, we will know that he really wishes us to write the Get or not - if
he gives the appropriate nod to each of a number of simple questions that we
ask him (three times for each question).
(d) The Tana did not just say simply 'Someone who drank fresh wine and was
harmed by it', but mentioned the name 'Kurdaikus' to teach us the name of
the demon concerned. He found it necessary to so - to enable one to dispel
it by means of a Kamei'a, which requires the name of the demon to be
(a) The relevance of lean meat roasted on coals and well-diluted wine to
Kurdaikus is - that it is the official cure for it.
(b) The connection between Kurdaikus and the third day of an illness caused
by overheating in the sun (dehydration) is - that the same cure serves both.
(c) The cure for this illness ...
1. ... on the first day - is a jar of water.
(d) Should the illness persist, one takes a black chicken and tears it open
along the length and breadth - before shaving the middle of the sick man's
head and placing it on that spot, leaving it there until it becomes putrid.
Then he stands in water until he feels weak, whereupon he goes for a swim,
leaves the water and sits down.
2. ... on the second day - is letting blood, using a horn.
(a) The official cure for a third-day sunstroke is lean meat roasted on
coals and well-diluted wine, that for frostbite is - fat meat roasted on
coals and undiluted wine.
(b) Rav Amram Chasida got frostbite - when the members of the Resh Galusa's
household made him sleep in the snow overnight.
(c) When they asked the following day what he wanted - he reckoned that if
he were to tell them that he wanted fat meat roasted on coals and undiluted
wine, they would give him the opposite, so he said he wanted lean meat
roasted on coals and well-diluted wine (and got what he wanted).
(d) The servants of the Resh Galusa did not like him - because he was a
Chasid (went beyond the letter of the law), and was very strict vis-a-vis
others as well as with himself.
(a) Apparently, the above cure is incomplete. When Yalsa (daughter of the
Resh Galusa, Rav Nachman's wife) heard about Rav Amram Chasida's
predicament - she placed him in a hot bath, until the water turned red from
the perspiration (that dripped from him as a result of the wine and the meat
that he had eaten.
(b) Round blotches subsequently appeared on his skin.
(c) When Rav Yosef got frostbite, he would run the mill. Rav Sheishes -
would carry heavy beams of wood.
(d) This affected the frostbite - because becoming hot is a good antidote
(a) When the Resh Galusa asked Rav Sheishes why he did not eat by him, he
replied that he could not possibly eat in a house where the servants were
suspected of eating 'Eiver min ha'Chai'.
He did not eat the rest of the meat - because he realized that it was
stricken with leprosy.
(b) Rav Sheishes proved his point to a skeptical Resh Galusa - by first
asking his own servant to bring him a leg from the animal which they later
served him; and when he complained that the animal that they were serving
only had three legs, they fetched another leg, at which Rav Sheishes
produced the first leg, ad asked them whether this animal had five legs.
(c) When they eventually served him, he knew that what they were serving him
was Kasher - because they prepared it in front of his servant.
(d) When he was about to start eating - he discovered a small bone from the
vicinity of the thigh, which they had deliberately served him, thinking that
he would not see it (because he was blind), and hoping that he would choke